- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:58 am to Wtodd
quote:
Bc they haven't done anything to keep pace with the changes
To be fair, a significant percentage are going to be left behind regardless of how they prepare themselves. This goes of all people, not just whites.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:58 am to volod
That's interesting considering Hillary won the under $50k vote.
I'm not sure what they based their study on but the poorest areas of Louisiana vote democrat.
I'm not sure what they based their study on but the poorest areas of Louisiana vote democrat.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:00 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
Where would China be if not for America?
I mean... not like China has been here exponentially longer than America or anything
I’d be confident in saying they’d exist perfectly fine without us. Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:00 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
Define "Advancing" first. If it's advancing economic and social freedoms, then show me an "Advancing Society" without capitalism or one who doesn't benefit directly from a society that is capitalistic.
That's my point. If we could hypothetically have a socialist society that advanced through industrial to a post-industrial, highly specialized economy, would we see the same results with the upper classes of a lowering birthrate?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:01 am to beerJeep
quote:
It’s not related to capitalism at all. China says hello!
You need to read up more on China. They are a very capitalistic society.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:03 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
That's my point. If we could hypothetically have a socialist society that advanced through industrial to a post-industrial, highly specialized economy, would we see the same results with the upper classes of a lowering birthrate?
Not if Government steps in and mandates/incentivizes an increase of birthrates. I would think upper classes in Socialist/Communist societies trend downwards anyways and would likely hold at a maintenance level.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:04 am to SidewalkDawg
Very similar to religion.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:04 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
Not if Government steps in and mandates/incentivizes an increase of birthrates.
That doesn't really make sense until they fall below replacement level.
quote:
I would think upper classes in Socialist/Communist societies trend downwards anyways and would likely hold at a maintenance level.
So then you agree that it is not, necessarily, an attribute of Capitalism.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:06 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
You need to read up more on China. They are a very capitalistic society.
They’re getting there. I’m far from an expert on China I’ll admit. Although I did have a Chinese roommate for a few years.
The decline in birthrate has to with the move to industrialization. This isn’t a capitalistic tenant as socialist and communist countries can go through industrialization, thus decreasing the birthrate.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:13 am to beerJeep
quote:
They’re getting there.
They've been there. Read up on the SEZs. After Mao died in 1976, the Communist party ditched command economics.
quote:
The decline in birthrate has to with the move to industrialization.
The decline in the birthrate was due to the one child policy. It was manufactured by government.
quote:
This isn’t a capitalistic tenant as socialist and communist countries can go through industrialization, thus decreasing the birthrate.
No socialist country has ever successfully moved passed industrialization.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:13 am to volod
About poverty level, correct me if I’m wrong but that isn’t adjusted for cost of living. I live in rural Georgia so as an example, my same home located 50 miles from here in a similarly rated school district..would cost at least 3 times as much. Taxes would also be higher, as would all disposable goods for food to fuel.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:14 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
So then you agree that it is not, necessarily, an attribute of Capitalis
I can agree its not necessarily an attribute of capitalism. Its an attribute of successful societies that promote selfishness and other than capitalistic societies I dont have many other concrete real life examples.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:19 am to volod
I'm trying to figure out the aim of this thread which has been regphashed hundreds of times on here
People move to where the jobs are located. Professional jobs pay more than agricultural or service jobs
People move to where the jobs are located. Professional jobs pay more than agricultural or service jobs
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:21 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
They've been there. Read up on the SEZs. After Mao died in 1976, the Communist party ditched command economics.
Is that why the Chinese govt forces companies like facebook and twitter to bend to their will?
They still have a frick ton of govt interference in the private sector. They’re getting there.
quote:
1976
And still feels like 1984
quote:
The decline in the birthrate was due to the one child policy. It was manufactured by government.
Which was done away with while the birth rate CONTINUES to decline. If the mandate was what controlled the birth rate, when it was reversed the birth rate should have returned. But it didn’t
quote:
No socialist country has ever successfully moved passed industrialization.
Because they ran the industry into the ground. Shocker I know.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:22 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
bout poverty level, correct me if I’m wrong but that isn’t adjusted for cost of living. I live in rural Georgia so as an example, my same home located 50 miles from here in a similarly rated school district..would cost at least 3 times as much. Taxes would also be higher, as would all disposable goods for food to fuel.
The author states that he is not an expert on American politics (neither am I). The safest route is to use the national consensus for poverty levels.
So at a national level, your area could be considered in poverty, but may be livable because of state subsidies or gerrymandering.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:23 am to volod
quote:
This is a capitalistic problem.
It's more of an issue with our economic system which favors the wealthy and urban mainly because of Keynesian economics. Our system isn't truly capitalistic
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:26 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:I understand what it means. I simply don't recognize it as a bad thing when we are talking about economic systems. Especially given that there is NOTHING more selfish than wanting things that you do NOT have to do anything to get. Which, is the bottom line crux of all non-Capitalist systems. All non-Capitalist systems are designed around the idea that it's "unfair" that the people who provide the most value get the most return.
You need to evaluate your understanding of what it is to be selfish.
I personally think that is by definition, the MOST fair thing that could possibly happen. Certainly more "fair" than a system that provides people a reward inversely proportional to their provided value.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:29 am to volod
quote:
So at a national level, your area could be considered in poverty, but may be livable
Because of a very low cost of living.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:29 am to beerJeep
quote:Exactly.
I’d wager they aren’t faults of the capitalist system, but rather faults on the individual.
100% of non-Capitalists see the fact that in any human endeavor, you will get uneven results, as somehow, the fault of Capitalism.
I suppose that wouldn't be so bad except that focusing on how uneven results are is a stupid way to measure economic results. It's why talking about the wealth gap is dumb.
No one should give a frick about the gap. What they should give a frick about is where the floor is............and.............how well they are doing individually.
I'm sometimes convinced that leftists would be THRILLED to report that there was basically no wealth GAP and wouldn't even have the presence of mind to ask, "how was that achieved"............I promise you that Venezuela has a much more "equal" society than we do.
Page 2 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News